The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 13:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Four Horsemen (baseball)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article concerns a non-notable neologism. Many teams and groups of players have nicknames. Not all are notable and neither is this. TM 17:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator rationale. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this article should remain, as it is a reference to what ESPN calls the best starting pitching rotation in all of Major League Baseball history, which in the National League, dates 135 years back to 1876. It also alludes to the apocalyptic feeling that may be felt by opposing teams when they see the futility of facing these four vaunted pitchers. Between the four, there are three Cy Young Awards, a World Series MVP, the second no-hitter in all of MLB postseason history and only the 20th perfect game in MLB history, as well as 13 All-Star Game appearances. ESPN itself used the very term in a Jayson Stark article. ^[1] ^[2]Bill S. (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ ESPN.com article which used the term "the Four Horsemen" Retrieved 2011-05-21
^ Jayson Stark article which refers to the Phillies pitching rotation as possibly the best in MLB history Retrieved 2011-05-21

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this non-notable neologism. Wait for some enduring notability before recreating. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge to 2011 Philadelphia Phillies season Per WP:NOTNEO, "articles on neologisms are commonly deleted ... To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." The sources found for this article simply use the term. While ESPN is frequently cited as a source both in the article and in this AfD, WP:GNG expects multiple sources to establish notability. However, ESPN should be treated as a single source, as WP:GNG says "multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." A standalone article is not warranted. Instead of a standalone article, relevant content should be merged instead to 2011 Philadelphia Phillies season. —Bagumba (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really it's more practical to cover this in the 2011 Phillies season article. Creating an article for every turn of a phrase that ends up in some sports column isn't very sensible way to organize information in an encyclopedia. --74.138.214.5 (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 2011 Philadelphia Phillies season, per most of Bagumba's reasoning, although ESPN is hardly the only reliable source that uses the term, e.g., NBC CBS Rlendog (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The CBS source is probably not reliable reliable—its from a message board which is a repost from another sports blog. In any event, the key for an article is the need for sources about the term and not ones that use the term.—Bagumba (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nickname isn't particularly widespread or well-known. I agree with Bagumba's concerns about the CBS source. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.